Article

2008-01-10 Iraq

151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion - WHO

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-01-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 Give it another year and a half and the toll might go down by another 75%.

Posted by gorb 2008-01-10 03:34|| 2008-01-10 03:34|| Front Page Top

#2 Does this include the 20,000+ terrorists killed by US troops and the unknown thousands eliminated by Iraqi forces, tribal militia, and vigilante groups?

Posted by Gromomble Oppressor of the Iowans8916 2008-01-10 03:38|| 2008-01-10 03:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Killed by whom? Were they blown up in suicide attacks, or abducted and either tied up and shot or beheaded?

Assuming that statistic is true, all it tells me is that Iraq has been a violent place containing the kind of vicious forces we should be combatting.

Posted by Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2008-01-10 05:10|| 2008-01-10 05:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Funny how WHO doesn't seem to waste any energy compiling stats on anything that doesn't criticize America.

Posted by gromky 2008-01-10 05:40|| 2008-01-10 05:40|| Front Page Top

#5 Even if the numbers are correct, and if they are all called 'murder', it would still only amount to a murder rate about three times that of New Orleans. Not good, but you can get used to it.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-01-10 07:40|| 2008-01-10 07:40|| Front Page Top

#6 Since 2003, there have been more than 80,000 homicides in the US. And then there's the death toll on the highway. Oh ... and there's no mention of the 300,000 Iraqis found in mass graves. I'm quite sure the US is at fault there too. BDS has infected the WHO.

Posted by doc 2008-01-10 08:20|| 2008-01-10 08:20|| Front Page Top

#7 While well below that figure, the United Nations agency's estimate exceeds the widely-cited 80,000 to 87,000 death toll by the human rights group Iraq Body Count, which uses media reports and hospital and morgue records to calculate its tally.

And what, exactly, would the death toll be if ONLY the hospital and morgue records were used?

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2008-01-10 10:30|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2008-01-10 10:30|| Front Page Top

#8 What were the number of dead annually prior to the invasion? I remember seeing stats of insanely high numbers from groups trying to end the sanctions.

By that calibration there has been a remarkable improvement in Iraq since the invasion.

This is also like judging the number of Germans killed during WW2 and insinuating the US is to blame for getting involved.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-01-10 10:47|| 2008-01-10 10:47|| Front Page Top

#9 I posted aboutt his at my blog last night.

These are reasonable numbers, though I still have questions about the methodology. The problem with self-reporting is that the past can become murky to the reportee. Table 2 in the report compares causes of death before and after Saddam, similar time frame. There are zero reported of murder before and 18 after. 4 due to road accidents before and 42 after. The before is Jan 2002-March 2003 and the after is March 2003-June 2006, entirely different time frames for the reporting.

All in all, though, this is a more accurate study than the Lancet one, and despite methodology issues, the findings may be just about correct.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2008-01-10 11:59|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org] 2008-01-10 11:59|| Front Page Top

#10 Considering the usual ~~deranged anti-American~~ suspects point out that the UN sanction in place before the war resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, this makes an improvement of over threefold in saving lives. Obviously, by their count, fewer Iraqis died during Bush's tenure than Bill's.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-01-10 13:29|| 2008-01-10 13:29|| Front Page Top

#11 Is this the same study that includes deaths due to natural causes and diseases like cancer, etc that Hannity, Boortz and Wilkow all respectively debunked months ago?

Posted by Broadhead6 2008-01-10 14:05|| 2008-01-10 14:05|| Front Page Top

#12 Interesting comment from the WSJ: "The Lancet's Political Hit"

Posted by tipper 2008-01-10 16:13|| 2008-01-10 16:13|| Front Page Top

#13 "Death tolls have fallen in recent months..."
Good old Reuters -- always saving the real news for the last sentence on the last page.

Posted by Darrell 2008-01-10 16:14|| 2008-01-10 16:14|| Front Page Top

#14 Chuck S:
I agree, with the following caveats:
1) Iraq is a naturally violent place with ~9,500 murders a year (per Strategypage.com). This means there have been 28,500 plain old criminal murders in Iraq during the time period covered.

2) This study explicitly included insurgent deaths, which come to 20,000 over the period studied.

3) That leaves 100,000 + deaths from AQI, etc. That's more than previously thought, and explains why the Shia are so reluctant to "forgive and forget".

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-01-10 17:00|| 2008-01-10 17:00|| Front Page Top

23:47 twobyfour
23:46 twobyfour
23:21 Mike N.
23:20 Redneck Jim
23:04 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:01 trailing wife
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:44 twobyfour
22:16 www
22:16 Abu do you love
22:14 Rex Mundi
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:05 RD
22:05 JosephMendiola
22:01 3dc
21:57 Old Patriot
21:43 mom (mrs. James)
21:16 Eric Jablow
20:56 JosephMendiola
20:52 Eric Jablow
20:46 mhw